SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: geode00 who wrote (78709)1/3/2009 9:11:14 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Israel must come to a ceasefire with the Palestinians

dailykos.com

by meldroc

Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 04:00:01 PM PST

I should have written this days ago. Not that a blog by yet another random guy on the Internet will help, but I have to say something. What Israel is doing in Gaza is out of line. Sure, Hamas is a big problem, but Israel can only make the problem worse with their current strategy.

So far, the Israeli military has killed over 400 Palestinians. Many of those killed were Palestinian civilians, including children. During the attacks, Israel has struck mosques, and a university. Just today, 13 people were killed when a missile hit the Ibrahim al-Maqadna mosque right in the middle of evening prayers.

I’m not opposed to Israel defending itself. I don’t have anything against the people of Israel, nor do I question Israel’s right to exist. I do have a problem with war crimes. Israel’s attacks are not a measured surgical response to Hamas attacks. They’re way out of proportion to anything Hamas has done, they’re intended as much to terrorize as to fight terror, and too many innocent people have died.

When one’s homes are bombarded and destroyed, when one’s land is taken a piece at a time by settlers in violation of treaties, and when family members are lost to bombs, bullets, starvation, lack of medicine and loss of hope, is it any wonder that many of them become angry and turn to groups like Hamas? Not that Hamas is led by anyone with a shred of decency - they attack Israel with rockets and suicide bombers that kill Israeli women and children. This isn’t a tactic that will win them hearts and minds. But in the face of Israel’s destructive campaign against the Palestinians, I can understand why that organization has popular support.

It’s all just completely senseless. Well, if you’re twisted enough, there’s plenty of sense to be made. Is it coincidence that Israel’s elections are just around the corner? Just as the U.S. has malevolent politicians like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, Israel has their own malicious personalities, like Ehud Olmert and Benjamin Netanyahu. They operate in the same way - they whip up their base by stirring up fear of the Other, and will use every tactic they’ve got from propaganda to starting wars with invented provocation. Hamas too operates this way - they whip up Palestinians with fear of Israel. Let people like this have their way, and before long, everybody is hating and fearing each other and is frothing at the mouth, itching for a chance to kill each other.

The problem isn’t with regular Palestinians. The problem isn’t with regular Israelis, or with regular Americans, or with regular anybodies. Most people in any of these countries are just ordinary folks, trying to make a living, feed their families, send their kids to school, live their lives. The problem is with the sociopathic leaders. The problem is with people like Bush, or like Olmert, or like Hamas’s leader Khaled Meshaal. They like war. They crave war. It gives their lives purpose. They wouldn’t know what to do with themselves if they didn’t have anyone they could attack. War is profitable to them - they and their cronies can engage in war profiteering and trade weapons (and you wonder why folks in the Middle East don’t like the U.S. very much - the cluster bombs and missiles that keep blowing up their kids all say "Made in the USA.") These people take advantage of the shortages, and the displacements and the misery created by war to exploit people. Why sell loaves of bread at $1 a loaf when you can sell it at $100 a loaf? Stir up chaos in the Middle East, and instead of selling oil for $40 a barrel, you can sell it for $160 a barrel. Notice that Bush isn’t lifting a finger to deal with this latest crisis. It’s not in his interests, or in the interests of his war-profiteering cronies. As Randi Rhodes puts it on her radio show, "In chaos, you can steal."

Fundamentally, what is war? In the words of American general Smedley D. Butler, "War is a racket!" War is a giant sociological mugging. Ordinary folks do not want war, and for good reason. When Bush sent Americans to war in Iraq, the Iraqis got mugged. Ironically, the Americans got mugged too, along with the rest of the world - Bush and his cronies spent trillions of dollars in Iraq, and now we’re looking at the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression. We were all mugged. In the same way, the corrupt elites in the Israeli government and in Hamas are mugging the people of Israel and Palestine.

If we want to put an end to all of this senseless violence, it is the rest of us, the ones just trying to make a living and help our families, who have to demand an end. Our politicians won’t act on their own volition - too many moneyed interests want the violence to continue. We need to demand peace, and make it clear that if our elected officials want to keep their jobs, and remain in power, they need to work for peace.

I call on President Elect Barack Obama to take immediate, decisive action, and call for an end the violence between the Israelis and Palestinians. Since President Bush is unwilling to take action, Obama should make an immediate condemnation of both Israeli attacks and Hamas’ attacks. Obama should call for both sides to come to the negotiation table and come to a cease fire, so the people in Gaza can rebuild their lives, and the people in Israel can also live in peace. I don’t know about you, but I’m sick of seeing pictures of children wounded by shrapnel.

-This diary was originally posted on my blog at Meldroc.com



To: geode00 who wrote (78709)1/4/2009 3:37:21 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Bush: Only time will tell about his legacy

sfgate.com

(01-04) 04:00 PST Washington - -- Love him or hate him, George W. Bush leaves office among the most consequential presidents in modern history. Like his home state of Texas, his presidency was big.

He sought "to end tyranny in the world." He began two wars. He cut taxes three times, tried to privatize Social Security, and added the biggest expansion of Medicare since it was created under Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. He took on AIDS in Africa and redrew the federal role in education. He named two relatively young conservatives to the Supreme Court. He declared by himself a "global war on terror" and asserted unprecedented executive powers to fight it.

As bold and brash as his father was cautious, W. rolled the dice at history. And history rolled them back.

Bush entered office only after a historic contested election was decided by the Supreme Court. The Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks came less than a year into his presidency; Hurricane Katrina ripped through its middle. And just as he prepared to head home to Texas, a financial panic struck on a scale not seen since 1929. His last major act was to loan billions to General Motors and Chrysler to avoid their collapse on his watch.

Historians will suspend immediate judgment. All modern presidents leave office sullied, yet many, like Harry Truman, Bill Clinton and even Jimmy Carter, have had their reputations restored with time. But from the vista of now, the nation's 43rd president risks joining the likes of Franklin Pierce, his own distant relative, as among the nation's worst presidents, harshly judged in their day and never bathed in the warm afterglow of hindsight.

Bush leaves to his successor two unfinished wars, Osama bin Laden living in an unstable Pakistan, a U.S. reputation soiled by Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and torture, a deep recession and what is sure to be the first $1 trillion-plus deficit. In short, a gigantic mess, all the bigger for the peace, prosperity and black ink he inherited.

The apex of Bush's presidency came when he stood on the rubble of the World Trade Center and rallied the nation from a bullhorn. There have been no terrorist attacks in the United States since, a fact he considers his signal if unappreciated achievement.

"I gave it my best," he recently told a guest at the White House.

But even if the war in Iraq one day fulfills Bush's vision of democracy in the Middle East, the global financial crisis may have sealed his fate. He has set a new polling record: Not even Richard Nixon was more disliked.

Bush liked to read something called the One-Year Bible, "the boiled-down, condensed, greatest hits of the Bible that would cut to the chase," said Bush biographer Bill Minutaglio, a journalism professor at the University of Texas. "I wish he had possessed a greater curiosity and intellectual ambition and scope and sweep to be commensurate with these outsized events that he had to deal with as president."

A gregarious and deeply religious man, Bush did not seek tokens for his Cabinet, but relied on African Americans, women and Latinos as his closest advisers. He lured minorities back to the party of Lincoln, speaking eloquently of family values not stopping at the Rio Grande. He campaigned as a "compassionate conservative," who would complete the Reagan Revolution by encouraging an "ownership society."

Yet he leaves behind partial nationalization of U.S. banks and $8 trillion in government guarantees of private debt. Vice President Dick Cheney, a key author of the Bush legacy, worried that his boss would go down as a second Herbert Hoover.

Bush spurned the model of his own father's presidency, the single term of George H.W. Bush, whose watchword was "prudence." W. looked to conservative icon Ronald Reagan. Yet instead of cementing a "permanent Republican majority," he ended the Reagan era.

Bush both grew the government and gave laissez-faire a bad name, overseeing a rash of corporate scandals in 2002 and the housing meltdown. The financial wreckage has many fathers, but Bush, the first MBA president, stands among them, failing to restrain the liquidity bubble as it ballooned and asking for $700 billion to rescue banks as it burst. The GOP is fractured and adrift.

"Bush has really destroyed small-government conservatism," said David Boaz, vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute.

Bush first campaigned as "a uniter, not a divider," but with his party controlling Congress, governed as a partisan.

History quashed any hope he had to transport the conservative bipartisanship of his Texas governorship to Washington. Losing the popular vote in 2000, he took office after the Supreme Court halted the Florida recount. "I think he was doomed to be a divisive president by the 2000 election," said Steven Schier, author of "Panorama of a Presidency: How George W. Bush Acquired and Spent His Political Capital." Although later unofficial recounts by news organizations and others showed Bush did win Florida, many would remain unconvinced.

"I think that helped to cast a framework for his presidency that he could only escape during a brief period right after 9/11," Schier said. "As he made mistakes, he just had less margin for error because of the hostility that he had engendered, and he was eventually done in by that."

One of the uneasy liberal Democrats who initially stepped forward to work with Bush, East Bay Rep. George Miller, offers only invective today.

"Really, he is the most damaging president to this country that we have seen," said Miller, whom Bush in friendlier days dubbed "Big George." "He'll go down in history. ... It's a history of disasters but they're all paid for by others. He didn't pay for them; the country's paid for them. They're a history of lies; they're a history of lack of respect for the Constitution, lack of respect for the separation of powers. I mean, this is a one-man destruction derby."

Yet modern presidents not thrown from office after one term leave their second in a thick haze of public fatigue and disillusionment. Such judgments are almost always softened by time.

"That's one of the things that presidential libraries do," said Thomas Schwartz, a historian at Vanderbilt University. The White House has already begun the project with a "100 Things Americans May Not Know about the Bush Administration Record" on its Web site. Bush has spent his last weeks on a legacy tour of speeches, interviews and a return to Iraq. Instead of triumph, he ducked shoes thrown by an Iraqi journalist.

Truman, as loathed as Bush in his day, now lauded for his handling of the Cold War, is a cautionary tale. As is Gerald Ford, whose pardon of Nixon may have cost him his election but by his death in 2006 was seen as an act of courage that helped heal the country after Watergate.

"To the extent that (President-elect Barack) Obama actually adopts some of the policies that Bush was adopting by the end of his presidency, Bush may not look so bad," Schwartz said. "Even if he got it wrong at first, they did eventually get it right." Bush forged strong ties with India, nudged China toward the West, encouraged Libya to disarm, and endorsed Palestinian statehood.

Even some detractors say Bush may not be getting enough credit for thwarting terrorist attacks, because it's hard to prove a negative and because the Iraq war overshadowed everything.

If Bush had stopped with the invasion of Afghanistan, when his poll numbers were stratospheric, "I think he'd be seen as a hero and as one of our better presidents," said James Pfiffner, a professor of public policy at George Mason University and author of "Power Play: the Bush Administration and the Constitution." "But he didn't stop there."

The decision to invade Iraq is seen now as a colossal blunder, and Bush's "combat operations have ended" speech aboard an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003, stands as proof he was fooled by events. Bush only recently backed off his insistence that he would have made the same decision today, saying he regretted the intelligence failures. He refused to say whether he would have invaded knowing Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Clearly, neither Congress nor the public would have gone along had he tried.

A clearer view will come "five years from now when we start to get the memoirs from all the people inside, and 20 years from now when we start to actually see the records," said Bruce Schulman, a Boston University presidential scholar.

Big, awful events such as Sept. 11 and Katrina dictated the path of Bush's presidency, but his personality dictated the administration's responses. Famously incurious, proudly anti-intellectual, decisive to the point of impulsive, an extrovert with uncommon energy, a sense of humor and personal charm, Bush was very different from his father, in whose shadow he spent most of his life.

The elder Bush saw the presidency as a stewardship, bemoaning his lack of "the vision thing." When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, George H.W. Bush was so reluctant to intervene that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher admonished him, "Don't go wobbly on me, George." He oversaw the peaceful collapse of the Soviet Union, and refused in modesty even to issue a statement when the Berlin Wall fell.

His son sought "game-changers," claimed missions accomplished prematurely, boasted and strutted on the world stage, and may have set back for decades much of what he set out to achieve.

Those who joined him, such as Britain's Tony Blair and Spain's Jose Maria Aznar, saw their own reputations sour.

W. was more like his mother, former first lady Barbara Bush, who blurted out, "You can't win," when he announced he would run for the Texas governorship in 1994. The family thought he was joking.

Until he quit drinking at 40 and became a born-again Christian, W. followed his father's path step by step but never measured up: Andover prep school, Yale, the secret society Skull and Bones, baseball, flight school, Texas oil fields.

He was a cheerleader, not a star athlete, an indifferent student who skirted Vietnam, not a war hero. His oil ventures failed, and success came only when he led a purchase of the Texas Rangers baseball team. He surprised his family by getting his MBA at Harvard, and finally bested his father when he won re-election in 2004.

Detractors call Bush stupid, but those who know him say he is far from that. Mockery of presidential intelligence is a tradition going back to John Adams, though Bush encourages it with bungled syntax, such as this to ABC's Charlie Gibson last month on the financial meltdown: "You know, I'm the president during this period of time, but I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived in president, during I arrived in president."

Oedipal theories abound, along with psychological speculation about grandiosity in former drinkers and a black-and-white, good-and-evil world view among evangelicals.

Babson College business ethicist James Hoopes, author of "Hail to the CEO, the Failure of George W. Bush and the Cult of Moral Leadership," sees the roots of Bush's leadership style in the Harvard management fad, still filling bookstore shelves, that promotes a notion of moral leadership and "values" over knowledge, execution and competence.

Bush resembles the late Enron CEO Ken Lay, who "was also a values-based leader, and didn't know what was going on at Enron," Hoopes said. "He thought he could run the company by just walking around being a leader and he didn't have to really manage." Bush likewise, making Sept. 11 a case of good versus evil, "is the biggest case study of a guy who thought his job was to walk around and be a cheerleader talking about values and everything else was going to take care of itself," he said.

Bush made no secret of relying on his gut, seeking divine guidance and asserting faith in his values. He did not read deeply or delve deeply into policies. "I feel so strongly about my principles and values," he said last May.

Bush often uses his Oval Office rug decision, the first he made as president, as a metaphor to describe his leadership style. "One of the important things is to surround yourself with people who you can trust, and delegate," he said recently. He delegated the decision to his wife Laura, insisting only that the rug reflect that an "optimistic guy goes to work here."

The metaphors history will likely choose to define George W. Bush are Iraq, Katrina and the Panic of 2008.

Bush bet his presidency on the war, claiming that former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that threatened the United States. The threat turned out to be a giant bluff by Saddam Hussein.

And the plan for a swift victory and quick exit turned into a bungled and bloody occupation that has left roughly 4,800 U.S. troops dead, 33,000 Americans wounded, as well as thousands of contractors and tens of thousands of Iraqis dead. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have lasted longer than World War II and cost 50 percent more than Vietnam: $904 billion since 2001, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. That ultimately could rise above $2 trillion, including decades of care for wounded veterans, estimated as high as $65 billion alone. Bush economic chief Lawrence Lindsay was fired for saying publicly that the Iraq war could cost $200 billion.

Bush delegated the war to the Pentagon, and fired Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld only after Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006.

By many accounts, he allowed Cheney, viewed by many as the Rasputin of the administration, to manipulate the White House policymaking process in a way he once himself warned was dangerous. Bush came within a hair of having a mass resignation at the Justice Department - and losing re-election - after Cheney and others left him blindsided on an internal fight over domestic surveillance.

After the bungled response to Katrina in 2005 and Bush's "heckuva job, Brownie" accolade to his hapless chief of disaster response, Michael Brown, the administration's lingering reputation for competence turned irrevocably into a caricature of cronyism and incompetence.

Bush was all about delegating, and yet was in fact "the decider."

He asserted sweeping executive powers, maintained that he did not have to obey the law as commander in chief, would not be constrained in his treatment of detainees, wrote bill-signing statements implying that he would not enforce the law, "and to an unprecedented extent he denied habeas corpus," said Pfiffner.

Bush adopted Cheney's view on executive power, foreshadowed years earlier in the minority report to the Iran-Contra investigation where he wrote that presidents may sometimes "assert monarchical notions of prerogative that will permit him to exceed the law."

Bush himself "was impressive in his use of power," Pfiffner said. "The problem was once he got what he wanted, the implementation was very problematic. He didn't listen to the career people, and the decisions turned into disasters."

Bush's good and bad traits look like two sides of the same coin. His lack of curiosity about policy and lack of probing that "left him subject to the whims and power of his advisers," said historian Schwartz, was countered by a resoluteness that enabled him to pull Iraq from the precipice. "He could make up in his mind," Schwartz said, "but it may be a mind that was made up without a lot in it."

Bush has placed Abu Ghraib on his list of regrets, along with faulty intelligence on Iraq, the war's length, partisan ill will, and the failure of immigration reform.

In late 2007, Bush stood on the abyss of a monumental defeat in Iraq. Against intense public opposition and the advice of Pentagon generals, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and his own secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, Bush's single-minded determination to surge additional troops into Iraq and adopt a counterinsurgency strategy improved the situation remarkably. Iraq is stable enough today that Bush has made it much easier for Obama to fulfill his promise to withdraw combat forces, a prediction almost no one, least of all Obama, would have made two years ago.

Yet the diversion of money, attention and personnel from Afghanistan to Iraq allowed Bin Laden to escape and the Taliban to reassert control over most of the country where the Sept. 11 attacks were launched. As Bush declared Iraq "the central front in the war on terror," neighboring, nuclear-armed Pakistan became what many intelligence analysts believe is the real terrorist front.

Kori Schake, who served as Bush's director for defense strategy at the National Security Council and as deputy director of policy planning at the State Department, said she believes the administration made a strategic error in conflating the war on terror and Iraq. Yet Iraq never would have happened without Sept. 11, said Schake, now a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and distinguished chair of international security at West Point.

"I was really struck when I came into the Bush administration by how all the senior people were very much afraid of having to go back to the American public after another attack on the United States, especially from Iraq, and say, 'We knew this guy was a problem for 15 years, we not only fought one war against him, we've had continuous operations going on since then, we took a third of his country away and have been administering it. He not only used chemical weapons against an enemy, he used them against his own people. We could have done more but we didn't.' "

Bush may have had a shot at redemption until the financial crisis struck. If the recession grows ugly enough, Bush's record could even threaten to undo Reagan's laissez-faire economic legacy.

Conditions are worse now than when Truman left office, said Sean Theriault, a political scientist at the University of Texas. "The objective standards by which we can evaluate the presidency are just so bad. The economy is truly in tatters, and I don't think any Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, can dispute that. When Bill Clinton left office you could argue that Americans were generally pleased, but people thought he wasn't a beacon of integrity. But we can't have an argument about the success of Bush's economic policies."

sfgate.com

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle



To: geode00 who wrote (78709)1/10/2009 5:04:24 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
W. and the damage done

salon.com

President Bush inherited a peaceful, prosperous America. As he exits, Salon consults experts in seven fields to try to assess the devastation.

By Vincent Rossmeier and Gabriel Winant

Jan. 08, 2009 |

After a couple of presidential terms, mismanagement in every area of policy -- foreign, domestic, even extraterrestrial -- starts to add up. When George W. Bush entered the White House in January 2001, he inherited peace and prosperity. The military, the Constitution and New Orleans were intact and the country had a budget surplus of $128 billion. Now he's about to dash out the door, leaving a large, unpaid bill for his successors to pay.

To get a sense of what kind of balance is due, Salon spoke to experts in seven different fields. Wherever possible, we have tried to express the damage done in concrete terms -- sometimes in lives lost, but most often just in money spent and dollars owed. What follows is an incomplete inventory of eight years of mis- and malfeasance, but then a fuller accounting would run, um, somewhat longer than three pages.

THE ECONOMY

Until not too long ago, President Bush's supporters could be heard to argue that the economy was the unheralded success story of his administration. In 2006, Larry Kudlow called it "The Greatest Story Never Told." While praising Bush, Ramesh Ponnuru decried the unfairness of it all. "It seems to happen every week: Some new piece of good economic news comes out, and Republicans sink a little deeper in the polls." To share their admiration, it helped if you ignored the way the wealth was being distributed. Or if you were a repo man.

But the whole debate became moot on Sept. 15, with the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Now the economy may be the most burdensome of all the Bush legacies that Barack Obama will have to shoulder.

The current financial and economic crisis has grown so massive, consuming everything in sight, that one might be able to forget that it started with bad mortgages. Well, one could try to forget, as long as one still has a home, or is not among the nearly one in four mortgage-holders whose homes are worth less than the debt on their homes.

How bad is it? "An average recession is one in which we lose about 3 percent of GDP. Three percent of GDP is about $500 billion," UCLA economist Lee Ohanian told Salon. "It's not inconceivable that this could be twice as worse, which would be close to a trillion."

How much poorer are we going to get before we start getting richer again? Here are some (scary, morbid, gruesome) clues.

Expected shortfall of gross domestic product below normal growth path in 2009: $900 billion

Decline in the Dow Jones Industrial Average from its decade high to its value at the close of business, Jan. 7, 2009: 5,394.83, or 38.1 percent

Number of manufacturing jobs lost since 2000: 3.78 million

Increase in number of unemployed workers from 2001 to 2008: 4 million, a jump of 2.7 percent in the unemployment rate

Real median household income according to the 2000 census, adjusted for inflation: $51,804

Real median household income as of August 2007: $50,233

Of course, the government didn't sit idly by while our financial future was disappearing down the drain. Instead, the feds have pumped in hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, hoping to juice lending and public spending.

Cost of finance industry bailout: $350 billion, with another $350 pending congressional approval

Cost of auto industry bailout: $17.4 billion, so far

And even though there's widespread agreement among economists that the government needs to be spending a large sum of money on an economic stimulus package, it still won't look pretty on the public balance sheet.

National debt: $10.6 trillion

Amount of that debt owned by China: At least $800 billion

INFRASTRUCTURE

When that bridge in Minneapolis collapsed, killing 13 and injuring 145, we started to remember that the prosaic details of infrastructure policy matter. Nuts and bolts can mean, quite literally, life and death. And the I-35 bridge over the Mississippi is not the only American thoroughfare suffering from underfunding and neglect.

Number of bridges judged structurally deficient: 70,000.

Number of major roads in mediocre or poor condition: Roughly one-third.

Meanwhile, the roads aren't only worn down, they're overcrowded. In part, we can thank an administration that gave tax credits to SUV buyers while targeting public transit for cuts.

The Bush White House's proposed cuts in public transit funding for fiscal year 2009: $202.1 million.

Though he capitulated in the face of overwhelming congressional majorities in favor of Amtrak, Bush threatened repeatedly to defund the national rail system altogether.

Target level of federal funding for Amtrak proposed by Bush in 2005: $0.

Budget cutting on that scale causes a decaying, obsolescent infrastructure. Fixing it won't come cheap. On Dec. 6, during his weekly address to the nation, President-elect Obama promised t0 make "the single largest investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s."

President-elect Obama's proposed infrastructure program: $375 billion to $475 billion.

Amount spent by FDR's Works Progress Administration, up through 1941: $11.4 billion -- adjusted for inflation, that's about $170 billion.

IRAQ

How many times have you heard, "With the money we spend in Iraq in just one week ..."?

So how much has that been, exactly? Linda Bilmes, a professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, and co-author with economist Joseph Stiglitz of "The Three Trillion Dollar War," thinks the figure in her book's title is, if anything, too low. (Bilmes and Stiglitz put the full price of all Bush administration debacles at $10 trillion in their own excellent damage report for the January issue of Harper's.)

"I think it's still a good figure. It was always a conservative figure. We essentially just took the amount of money that we spent to date, the sort of minimum that we are going to need to spend on veterans' disability benefits, veterans' disability, weapons that have been used up, interest on the money we've borrowed. And then there are some of the economic costs. There are social costs, like parents or spouses of wounded veterans who have to leave their jobs after parents come back. And there are economic costs, such as oil disruption."

Cost: From the start of the war through 2017, "You can't get any lower than $3 trillion."

And a gradual drawdown of troops isn't going to make it better, Bilmes says. Maintaining any presence at all in Iraq entails what economists call high fixed costs. Whether we've got 10,000 troops or 15,000 at a base, that base is still going to cost a lot to maintain. Hence, when the British withdrew half their forces from Basra, their costs fell by an almost imperceptible 3 percent.

Since $3 trillion is hard to digest, let's itemize some of the costs in Bilmes and Stiglitz's comprehensive figure.

Amount of money earned by a married U.S. Army sergeant with children per day in Iraq in 2007: $170

Amount of money earned by a Blackwater military contractor per day: $600

Number of U.S. military deaths as of Jan. 7, 2009: 4,222

Average cost of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle: $3.166 million

Cost of the new U.S. Embassy in Baghdad: $592 million

Cost to conduct the war per month: $12 billion

Amount the Bush administration estimated the war would cost from start to finish: $60 billion

The cost to "fix" the military: Meaning, to restore battered and depleted personnel and materiel. Larry Korb, a defense analyst at the Center for American Progress, thinks we're talking about $250 billion. "In terms of materiel, obviously, if you're talking fiscally, you've got the reset cost of the equipment that's been destroyed, used up, burned in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, you've got at least $100 billion. So that's one cost, because you assume this is going to last longer, when you bought it." And then there's personnel: recruitment bonuses, the new GI bill, pay raises. Korb's guess is about another $150 billion there. And this isn't money that we'll necessarily recoup when the war ends. "You can never roll those back," he says of the GI bill and bonuses.

And, while these estimates overlap with those made by Bilmes, they don't even account for most of the increased defense spending. The Pentagon's budget is up about 40 percent since Bush's inauguration, says Korb. "I'd only say about one-quarter is due to the things we spoke about. The other is just poor management. You have the cost overruns in weapons systems, $400 billion in weapons systems since they came in."

HUMAN RIGHTS

One of President Obama's important early tasks will be dismantling the culture of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo, the web of white papers and executive orders that jeopardized habeas corpus and allowed -- encouraged -- torture.

The damage to the image of America may be long-term. Karen Greenberg, the executive director of New York University's Center on Law and Security, says that the stain on America's reputation among foreigners and, for that matter, Americans can never be removed.

"And it sullied -- not so much our reputation, because that's the obvious -- it sullied on some level how we think of ourselves," says Greenberg. "You can't undo the damage that torture's done. You took something out of a box that has vast repercussions, and gave people a chance and a reason to defend a practice that brings out rather horrific things about human beings for very little, for no gain. So the way to go about the torture thing is in a very definitive way. Which is, we're not going to do it. The policy prescription is not to have a policy. We don't torture."

Our methods in the war on terror, says Greenberg, expose a fundamental lack of faith in the ability of democracy to achieve policy successes. "The biggest cost of torture was that it eroded the confidence of the American people. Because if you choose bullying as your method, you are saying, we don't trust ourselves to have the skills, whether they are the intelligence skills, or the law enforcement skills, to be the best in the game and the best and the brightest on the issues that are part of our national security."

But there are also quantifiable costs to holding enemy combatants indefinitely, and creating military commissions to try them.

Number of detainees who have died in U.S custody: Human Rights First claimed that as of February 2006, nearly 100 had died, a figure the Pentagon disputes. In addition, Amnesty International says that more than three dozen individuals believed to have been in U.S. custody have essentially disappeared.

Cost of building and staffing detention facilities at Guantánamo: More than $400 million as of December 2008. Yet to be determined: the price for trying the 250 detainees who remain, or any civil suits that might be forthcoming.

HURRICANE KATRINA

When Katrina's winds were finally quiet, they had left in their wake a mountain of statistical testimony to the power of a hurricane and the incompetence of the government officials who were supposed to deal with it. Fifteen million people on the Gulf Coast were affected and 400,000 jobs and 275,000 homes were lost. The most important statistic of all is the number of deaths. Estimates vary greatly, but deaths directly caused by the August 2005 storm are generally believed to be in excess of 1,100, perhaps about 1,500, with total direct and indirect deaths in excess of 1,800. Another 700 or so people are still missing. Many thousands more, however, who fled Louisiana to escape the storm have never come back. The city's population is still only at 72 percent of its pre-Katrina level of 450,000. Louisiana and North Dakota are the only two states whose populations declined between 2000 and 2008.

But let's talk about money.

Cost to the federal government: As of mid-2006, Congress had approved $122 billion in funds for the region. FEMA had paid $19 billion.

Cost to insurers: A month after the storm, the insurance industry gave the preliminary figure of $34.4 billion. A year later, the number was $40.6 billion. Harry Richardson, a professor of public policy at the University of Southern California and editor of a collection of scholarly articles called "Natural Disaster Analysis After Katrina," notes, grimly, that any assessments of the storm's impact should also include financial losses because of fatality. "Generally we estimate the value of life -- even for poor people -- at about $5 million per person. So if you wanted to estimate the cost in human life, you could multiply that [times the number of deaths]." At 1,800 deaths, that's another $9 billion or so.

There has also been a financial impact on people who were spared the wrath of Katrina, who have never heard of a levee and live far from Louisiana and Mississippi. Home insurance has become more costly and/or more difficult to procure. After the storm, many national insurers simply stopped issuing policies for homes that were too close to coastlines.

Cost to repair the levees in New Orleans: $1 billion, with no guarantee, as sea levels rise and hurricanes increase in intensity, that they will hold.

HEALTHCARE

Americans are ambivalent about healthcare reform. They consistently cite it as a top issue in polls, and promising action on healthcare helped Bill Clinton get elected in 1992 and Barack Obama win 16 years later. But they've proved skittish about the actual details, as Clinton learned once in office. Victor Fuchs, an emeritus health economist at Stanford, says that "the public has shown no disposition to support any significant reform."

The Bush administration embodied this schizophrenia. Public concern about the rising cost of heathcare led Bush to push for the the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act in 2003, which included a prescription drug program called Medicare Part D that went into effect on Jan. 1, 2006. It was a somewhat compassionate idea, since it helped seniors pay for needed medicine, but it wasn't exactly conservative. Sure, it protected profits for drug companies, but only by forcing the government to pay the high prices that consumers had been paying. To the chagrin of Republicans who helped pass it, Bush's drug plan has turned out to be one of the biggest new entitlement programs of the past 40 years. (It only won enough Republican support to pass Congress because the Bush administration lowballed the actual price.)

Cost of implementing Medicare Part D: $534 billion

Difference in price of brand-name drugs, U.S. and Canada, in 2004: 70 percent more expensive in the U.S.

Increase in average prescription drug price between 1997 and 2007: From $35.72 to $69.91

While buying drugs for seniors, Bush denied healthcare to kids. In 2007, he vetoed an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which gives federal money to the states to help provide health insurance for families with children.

Number of children kept off of SCHIP because of Bush's veto: 4 million

Meanwhile, the nation's underlying healthcare problems remain unaddressed. Healthcare grows more expensive, and the number of uninsured Americans, as a percentage of the population, is not decreasing.

Number of uninsured Americans: 46 million, or 18 percent of the population under 65. Says Roger Hickey, founder and co-director of the progressive political organization Campaign for America's Future, "That's about 16 percent of the population. A larger and larger percentage of the public is losing their employer-sponsored healthcare because it's become so expensive for employers to insure their people. And that's the backbone of our system."

Increase in the amount that the average employee pays toward employer-provided healthcare since 2000: 120 percent

According to Hickey, the number of uninsured has fluctuated over the past eight years, but the figure is deceiving. "I can't say that it's gotten dramatically worse. [B]ut there was an analysis when the latest numbers came out about three months ago that showed the only thing that kept it from getting worse is that more and more people are signing up for public programs like Medicaid." Hickey expects the number to spike upward very soon. "People are losing their jobs -- there's about to be a huge leap in the uninsured as the recession hits."

Hickey characterizes Bush's expansion of Medicare as "a wasted opportunity," because of corporate influence on drug pricing. "The legislation was written by drug company lobbyists and lobbyists-to-be like Billy Tauzin of Louisiana, who wrote the bill and then took a job as the head of PHRMA, the pharmaceutical lobbying organization ... There are actually provisions in that law that protect drug companies from competitive pricing."

Harvard Business School professor Regina E. Herzlinger, author of the book "Who Killed Health Care?," says that the scariest American healthcare stat is probably how much we spend on it as a percentage of our economy.

Cost of healthcare as a percentage of GDP: 16 percent

Ratio of cost of healthcare to cost of national defense: 4.3-1

"As an economist," says Herzlinger, "I am tremendously concerned about the ever increasing fraction of our GDP that's taken up with health care. Most of the countries that we compete with average 9 to 10 percent of their GDP on health care. We spend about 70 percent more and I cannot honestly say that we're getting 70 percent better health care in the U.S."

"I put this squarely at the foot of the Bush Administration. They were purportedly people who were interested in helping consumers but they didn't do a lot of the things that could have helped the consumer."

CLIMATE

Number of nine warmest years on record that have occurred since 2000: Seven.

How much has the Arctic ice cap shrunk? 50 percent since the turn of the century.

By now, the stories of global warming denial and outright censorship of government scientists by the Bush administration are well known. The incoming Obama administration admits the existence of climate change, but a decade has been lost. Meanwhile, there is both a tremendous and growing financial impact from existing climate change, and the specter of the enormous economic commitment that would be required just to return global temperatures to status quo.

"It's difficult to put a cost on sea level rise of 40 feet, or the Southwest becoming desertified," says physicist and Salon contributor Joseph Romm. "[But i]f you were to ascribe to Bush a significant fraction of the cost of catastrophic climate change, then it's a number that's going to dwarf all the numbers you have."

The Stern Review, a report commissioned by the British government, pegs the potential cost of unaddressed climate change at 20 percent of world gross domestic product. While that's an immense figure, it doesn't adequately conjure the Armageddon we're facing, Romm says.

"From my view, you have to start talking, at some point in the second half of the century, about triaging coastal cities. You're certainly not going to try to save every coastal city. Galveston is probably a write-off, but you're certainly going to try to save Houston. You're not going to save the Florida Keys but you'd save Miami, certainly, New York, the island of Manhattan. But it's one thing to save them from a few feet of sea level rise. It's another thing when we're talking about 20 or 100."

So, what's it going to run us to save Manhattan from the sea? It means the replacement in the next three or four decades of all the infrastructure of the developed world, followed by a similar effort in the rest of the world in the second half of the century.

Cost to fix: 2 or 3 percent of global GDP, a couple trillion a year.

The good news: "Because we're so rich," says Romm, "avoiding catastrophe is a huge amount of money in absolute terms, but it's pocket change relative to our wealth."

-- By Vincent Rossmeier and Gabriel Winant